buildings with green views from the adjacent properties. it will provide energy benefits by reducing energy usage in the buildings by up to 50% by the insulating factors of the green roof and walls. it will be an effective method of absorber in co2 emissions -- absorbing co2 emissions. it will lower the impact of the source system and help to preserve the bay. the design is beautiful and can serve as an educational and community amenity that will be used by the public in general and an educational opportunity for green infrastructure for the public. >> thank you. lee radner, mason grigsby. >> good morning.

lee radner with the friends of golden gateway. i will be brief. can i have the overhead? there we go. thank you. you are looking at a view from the brand new and beautiful park looking right at washington street. the view includes the ferry building. the view on your right is what

will happen when these massive buildings go up along washington with a stone wall right in front of the park. john king recently wrote an article about this project. i do not generally totally agree with john, but he did not appreciate the heights. he did say the best part of the project was on the ground floor. it was a summer ago that we presented to you the a in the report -- a &d report that includes these aspects plus recreational space, the views, and the amenities that the neighborhood and people have now. we can live much better without

0.5% living in stone, glass structures that have no meaning for the middle class people who live in this city. this morning, i heard a report on the radio that middle-class families in this city have dropped from over 60% to under 40%. having projects like this puts another nail in the coffin for people like myself and i would imagine just about everybody in this room. thank you. >> my name is mason grigsby. i am here to talk about a bigger vision than just this project for san francisco. i have been in this town for 50 years, longer than most of you. i have seen a lot of recreation being built in the city.

i am now seeing it being destroyed. jack' scott's driving range was eliminated in favor of development. the japan town bowling alley was eliminated in favor of development. in multiple tennis courts are deteriorated as we speak. over 1/3 of them are unplayable. think about the big vision of san francisco and where this takes us. i started when i got here at the age of 25 playing at the golden gate way. that club is responsible for lots of people in the exercise and recreation they can enjoy it while in san francisco. the flip side of the this is that the city has passed a

regulation. that is great. we need to keep people healthy. we have a healthy san francisco law to keep people healthy. we have a signed to take the stairs to get healthy. the message you are sending is that if you want to be healthy, leave town. it will not happen if you are in san francisco. think about the big picture of what is happening to the city. if you want to look at it as a place for families, kids, and seniors -- i am 75. i am in the same shape i was in when i got here when i was 25. there has been no deterioration in my help. it is because i started playing at the golden gate way. i would encourage those of you who want to stay healthy to take up tennis. i have to make one comment about the wall. is everyone seems fixated with. i have no clue what they do for recreation. please explain to me what the walkways have to do with anything.

walking back and forth to the embarcadero does not help anybody get healthy. thank you very much. >> i live in the richmond district. i am a member of the golden gate waco. i am an avid supporter of this project. that is primarily because of the middle-class residents, i am so happy to have access to the golden gateway club. i am very excited about the equipment they are doubling. the fitness facilities, and quadrupling the pool opportunities. a lot of people will be very excited about that. i really enjoy getting out of the richmond heading over. i appreciate the green roofs that will be there.

right now for swimming, we change in one room with two showers and two bathrooms. we're climbing over each other. we are waiting for pools and time to exercise. this is going to provide ample space for lounge, deck, swimming, kins --kids. there are cafes an important part in that will be next door. right now, we have 15 spaces. it is prohibitive. do you have to plan a perfectly to be able to go in and enjoy the club. the green roof is an amazing resource. it will be a beautiful thing for people along the waterfront to enjoy. it promotes the general welfare of our entire community by

opening up the walkways along jackson and pacific, opening up the park, and bringing security and vitality to three blocks of the city waterfront. thank you. >> good morning. i am bill hammond. i am president of the golden gate we tenants' association. i have asked you to maintain existing height limits and vote no on the resolution. the reason for the master plan and waterfront plan is to limit growth and development. new projects should fit within existing height limits. if you relax the limits for this property, another developer will be before you shortly with another request to increase the height limits somewhere else along the waterfront.

eventual result could be a solid wall of high-rise buildings along the waterfront. if the height limits are not maintained, you may find you do not have a master plan, a waterfront plan. you have an illusion. please vote no on the resolution. thank you. >> nan roth. >> there are some many things one could say. i have been active on the waterfront for decades. i was on the waterfront plan advisory board. i represented my neighborhood for many years as the chair of the waterfront committee. all of this strikes very close to my heart. one thing that was mentioned

triggered a memory. the original plan for the golden gate way occluded two or three more high-rise towers on the site of what is now the golden gateway commons. it was only due to the tenacity and dedication of a notorious member of our organization who is no longer with us, robert cast, he doggedly hounded these people until he got the height limits lowered. that is when it all happened. it was freeway. it was a very important thing. we also need to keep in mind the fontana apartments and the repercussions from that. also like to mention alan jacobs who was our planning director many years ago. he put together an urban design plan that won awards. it is world famous. it is taught in all the schools.

one of the factors in the urban design plan was at the height limits dissent -- descend down to the waterfront. i was active in opposing the earlier proposal on the waterfront that is apparently coming back. that is the one they wanted to build up to 110 feet south of mission street. this is just the beginning of the end. you have to think ahead on what this is going to trigger in terms of future development. this is a very developer- friendly city. there are going to be water from hounds. the port has made much about reconnecting the city with the waterfront. this does not do that. this is a wall, fenced in community. when you think about who will be living here, these are going to be the most expensive condos in

the city. you have to keep in mind the fact that there is a growing one% movement of people becoming very aware of this. this is a very important site in terms of accessibility for the waterfront and the environment we want to create that makes people want to come to the waterfront. i do not see this doing that. i would like to mention that i was one of the original members of the golden gateway chess club. we have no other facilities or other sites where this could be duplicated. the tennis courts were eliminated without warning. thank you. >> i am speaking as a reporter on waterfront matters going back to the 1950's.

the waterfront has always been very important to me. i am echoing what nan and others have said. if this project is built, it will open the floodgates. developers will line the waterfront with a wall of high rises. thank you. >> good morning. it is usually good afternoon. i am one of those engaged people who seems to show up. i am also involved in green building. i do a lot of research in the field. i always listen with interest when people talk about green benefits. i like to highlight the fact of the green building code requires a san francisco a strong green component.

when you are building the most expensive condominiums in the city, what adds value is to hire gher leed certification. when i hear numbers, and become interested in whether they add up. if you sequester the carbon from 2007 hundred 30 cars on those roofs per year -- 2730 karzai on those servers per year, that will be impressive engineering to hold it up year after year. if you take that green stuff down so that the way it does not go up, what happens to it? it will be decomposing and releasing carbon for the decomposition process.

please pay careful attention to the actual reality behind some of the green plants use. sometimes they sound wonderful. the reality may not be there. i did have a more substantive comment about proceeding. the waterfront plan is to be reviewed periodically. it has not been. we have an interesting and attractive plan that has been proposed by a citizens group that was presented to this commission. we have an alternative interpretation that was presented by a more official group that ignored a number of concerns raised. the net result is we have an existing plan, two competing visions. these lots are at the center of this. to contemplate introducing a zoning change before you never

actually done a review of the area plan and made appropriate revisions strikes me as irresponsible in many ways. it encourages future zoning activities which increase the level of contention between the developer community and residents. it does not do anybody any good. it costs money. it wastes time. i urge you to set a precedent that says if we do not have something compatible with an area plan, we will not consider it until there has been revision to the full plan. >> ernestine weiss. >> i created ferry park.

this proposition will destroy it. this is the wrong fit for this quarter. there is no merit to it. we do not need condos. we need housing for key personnel like fire and police. no mayor has ever proposed this. nobody has ever done anything about it. it is a disgrace in this city. if we have an earthquake, we do not have emergency responders. they live in the outer boroughs. the 84 foot height is out of date. this is outrageous that you even want to think about raising it further. that was satisfactory when the freeway was built. you have to review the waterfront focus plan and alamitos atolls upset of -- when used planned and change that. -- you have to review the waterfront plan and change that. the waterfront land use plan

says to connect the land to the bay. this plan violates all of that. the historic view of the ferry building is violated. i am on the south side of the building. it will cut off all the sunshine on the south side. this is the worst proposal ever of the waterfront. how about an earthquake? if you build this high-rise building right on top of my building and we have an earthquake, it will go right into my building. how about that? have you ever thought about that? the hearings we have had with the port commission, all of these communities were 99% against it. why are we even considering this? it should be defeated and put in the waistband. it has no merit. -- it should be defeated and put in the wastebin. has no merit. you should not be considering it. it is the wrong fit for this quarter. the underground garages ar

wrong. the traffic patterns. it has the same proponents as the defeated plan. it is not feasible. to put an entrance and exit on washington, a narrow street, is insane on that corner. thank you. [tone!] >> good morning. my name is bill soro, president of the barbary coast neighborhood association. in the last issue of our newspaper, i wrote a column of like -- i would like to capitalize for you. the occupy movement has become a major issue in san francisco and all over the world. the protestors are claiming the government has conspired with

corporate interests to allow the rich to get richer while too big to fail actions have protected the companies. the rationale for all of this is greed, pure and simple. at the core is a broken and corrupt political system of values money above everything else. let's compare this issue to the matter at hand today. through a quirk in zoning when the embarcadero freeway was removed, the owner of the gateway apartments own a cherished recreation facility that is in this zone -- miszoned for 85 but housing. now the developers want even more. why would he want to virtually eliminate the one recreational component the gateway renters can enjoy it seems like it would help to rent apartments, right? agreed comes into play again. mr. food stands to make -- mr.

fu stands to make more money by selling the land and getting the action on three future sales. do you want to toss out a 50- year consensus policy of not raising heights along the embarcadero so that a developer can build high-rise vacation homes for the 0.5%? do you want to destroy a place where 2000 san franciscans work out and enjoy the only outdoor tennis and swimming facilities in the city? these the same middle class families the city wants to keep your. do you forever want to block their common views from the very building -- ferry building and park in joined by residents and visitors? if that is the case, this is a

very disappointing day for san francisco. thank you. [tone!] >> good morning, commissioners. i am appearing before you today on behalf of a group known as recreation and open space for the waterfront. we have participated for over 30 years in a variety of different activities on the waterfront. collectively, we work with a group called the waterfront action group and the barbary coast to have a hotel site reduced from 84 feet down to 40 feet. the president of the supervisors personally carry that forward and that the zoning redone. that site had been zoned for 40 feet by the waterfront land use plan. after it was owned, they encouraged the developer to build a hotel that would take advantage of the pre-zoning put

there in 1951 by caltrans and the city to put a freeway. if you collectively look at all of the freeway sites, 84 foot zoning was there. this site, the golden gate, and recreational complex, has never had any history of being zone for housing. it was put there in 1951 because the freeway was there. subsequent to that, the redevelopment agency came along and build one of the great things they have accomplished in our history -- a whole neighborhood, including 1200 rental apartments, the golden gateway swim and tennis club without force bases. it is regarded as one of the great outdoor recreational facilities in san francisco. the wonderful long will disappear when they build the green roof. the present plan for 8

washington street presented two weeks ago called for no tennis courts and a larger swimming complex. the building would go from 84 feet to 92 and 132 -- a 50- foot increase. this is a wonderful neighborhood. 2000 people are seniors that live across the street in the golden gateway center. over 2000 other people live in the neighborhood. there are 1500 tenants, commercial tenants who use the neighborhood. in changing the height and removing the swimming and tennis club, you are going to sentence the seniors and others to an earlier death. that is what is going to happen. when that goes away for the benefit of a new group of people, you will find this

position and future dramatically changed. -- their disposition and future dramatically changed. >> my name is stored morton. i have been on the technical advisory committee for a number of years as a preservationist. i was one of the founders of heritage 40 years ago. i have been on the northeast were differences ins -- citizens. i have been on the northeast citizens waterfront advisory commission for a number of years. i was against the initial project because it was tall buildings. the logical outcome of a lot of the composition was to lower the front building and raised about building. that seems logical. if you look at the building behind a project, it is huge. it is very tall. simon has done a fine job with other piers.

we know he is a quality developer. this project is advantageous to the port. i am concerned about the port. they need more than $1 billion to do the things that will bring the sport in to good condition. this is one product that will help that. it is only an 8 ft. addition in the front. it goes from 84 to 92 feet. it is only one portion of the building. it is only adding one story. it is not such a bad abuse of the height limit. i am in favor of this. thank you very much. >> my name is julie sullivan representing the action coalition.

we believe this will bring enormous benefits to the entire city. in spite of all the controversy, what is being discussed is a simple land-use question. should lot 351 remain a parking lot or not? if not a parking lot, what should it become? the opposition comes from a small group of people, mostly white and upper-middle-class, that have lived in the neighborhood for decades. it should be noted that the housing they live in replaced an earlier generation of businesses and residents. we also noticed that many of those opposed to the project of lived here for years in rent- control housing. it is a curious platform from which to oppose new how it --

new housing. it displaces no one except tennis courts. the accusations against the project is that it will become largely housing, something we can see. this is some of the most valuable land in northern california. for decades through land-use decisions and policy, the city has said it the land is developed for private housing, it must pay. this includes rent to the city, enormous fees to support subsidized housing, a new private maintained park, a new recreational facility, in the walkway to access the waterfront, and enlivened streetscape. these are not small benefits or cheaper ones. on the question of height, we would know the proposed project

is 1/4 of the commercial building and 1/2 of the adjacent residential building. this is nestled among the tallest buildings on the skyline. we ask the city to choose a land use alternative that benefits the largest number of sentences since -- san franciscans and not those of a single neighborhood. >> is there additional public comment? it is not necessary. >> my name is lee is -- louise renny. i would like to follow-up with three comments in opposition to the change. when you take a look at the pictures of the project, much is made of the improvement in the condition of the property facing the embarcadero. that is true.